http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SARIN CHEMICAL LABORATORY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/08/1970

BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. SHAH, J.C.

CITATION:  1971 AIR   65            1971 SCR  (1) 731  1970 SCC  (2) 403  CITATOR INFO :  E          1973 SC  78  (5)  F          1973 SC 960  (5,6)

ACT: U.P.  Sales-Tax  Act  U.P. Act of 1948 S.  3  and  3-A-Tooth Powder-If  liable  to  tax  as  toilet  or  as   unspecified commodity.

HEADNOTE: On  the  question whether tooth powder manufactured  by  the assessees  was "cosmetic" or a "toilet requisite" liable  to tax under s. 3(A) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, read with Entry 6 of Notification No. 905/X dated March 31, 1956/or  whether it is an unspecified commodity liable to tax under section 3 of the Act, HELD :-Tooth powder is a toilet and therefore taxable  under s.   3(A)  of  the  U.P.  Sales  Tax  Act,  read  with   the Notification. Neither the expression ’cosmetic, nor ’toilet requisite’ has been  defined  under the Act.  The names  of  articles,  the sales and purchases of which are liable to be taxed given in a statute, unless defined in the statute, must be  construed not  in  a  technical sense but as understood  in  a  common parlance.  In common parlance a tooth -powder is  considered as  a  toilet and that meaning accords with  the  dictionary meaning as well. [732 E, H] Bamavater  Budhaiprasad  v. The Asstt.  Sales  Tax  Officer, Akola and Another, 12, S.T.C. 286, followed. V.  P.  Sanasundara Mudaliar v. State of Madras  14,  S.T.C. 943;  Commissioner  of Sales Tax v. Vicco  Laboratories,  22 S.T.C. 169, approved.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 262 to  265 of 1970. Appeals  by-special leave from the judgment and order  dated May  1,  1969  of  the Allahabad High  Court  in  Sales  Tax Reference  Nos.  249,  250, 251 and 571 of  1966  and  Civil Appeals Nos. 266 and 267 of 1970.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Appeals  by special leave from the judgment and order  dated January  29, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in  Sales  Tax Reference Nos. 604 and 603 of 1965. H. R. Gokhale, Gobind Das, D. N. Mishra and B. P. Singh, for the appellant (in all the appeals). C. B. Agarwala and 0. -P.  Rana, for the respondent (in  all the appeals). 732 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. These are connected appeals by special leave.  The only  question  raised in these appeals is-  whether  ’Sarin Tooth   Powder’  manufactured  by  M/s.    Sarin   Chemicals Laboratory is "cosmetic" or a "toilet requisite" as held  by the  High  Court  of  Allahabad  or  it  is  an  unspecified commodity liable to sales tax at all points of sale as  held by the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Agra. The contention of M/s.  Sarin Chemical Laboratory who is the appellant in all the appeals is that the turn-over  relating to  the sales of tooth powder is liable to be taxed  at  the rate  of 3 pies per rupee under s. 3 of the U.P. Sales  Tax- Act  (to  be  hereinafter referred to as  the  Act)  whereas Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. contends that the said  turn over is liable to be taxed at single point under s. 3(A)  of that  Act  read with Entry 6 of the notification  No.  905/X dated  March  31,  1956.  The High Court  has  accepted  the contention  of  the  Commissioner.   In  these  appeals  the assessee challenges the conclusion reached by the High Court and  supports  the  view  taken  by  the  Additional   Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Agra, who held that the tooth  powder is an unspecified commodity liable to tax under s. 3 of  the Act. Neither the expression ’cosmetic’ nor ’toilet requisite’ has been  defined  in the Act.  The dictionary  meaning  of  the expression    ’cosmetic’   (see   Webster’s    international Dictionary)   is  "A  preparation  to  beautify   or   alter appearance   of  the  body  or  for   cleansing,   coloring, conditioning  or  protecting  skin, ’hair,  nails,  eyes  or teeth".   The  same  dictionary gives  the  meaning  of  the expression  "toilet" thus : ’an act or process of  dressing, especially  formerly  of  dressing  hair  and  now   usually cleansing   and  grooming  of  one’s  person".    The   word "toiletry"  is explained in the said dictionary  as  meaning "an article -or preparation used in making one’s toilet such as  soap,  lotion,  cosmetic, tooth  paste,  shaving  cream, cologne etc. According to the dictionary meaning tooth powder is regarded both  as an item of cosmetic and toilet: but as observed  by this  Court in Bamavatar Budhaiprasad v. The  Asstt.   Sales Tax  Officer, Akola and another(1), the names  of  articles, the  sales  and purchases of which are liable  to  be  taxed given  in  a statute unless defined in the statute  must  be construed  not  in a technical sense but  as  understood  in common  parlance.  Therein this Court was called  ’-upon  to consider  whether  ’betel  leaves’ could  be  considered  as ’vegetable’  under  item No. 6 of Schedule II of the  C.  P. Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947.  In that case this Court observed that  the word ’vegetable’ had not been defined in  the  Act and being a word of every day use, (1) 12, S. T. C. 286; 733 it must be construed in a popular sense, meaning "that sense which  people  conversant with the, subject in  matter  with which  statute is dealing would attribute to  it."  Applying that  test  this  Court ruled that betel  leaves  cannot  be considered  as  ’vegetable’.   In common  parlance  a  tooth

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

powder  is  considered as a toilet.  That  meaning  ,accords with the dictionary meaning, as well. The  question  whether tooth powder can be considered  as  a toilet  came  up  before  the Madras High  Court  in  V.  P. Sanasundara  Mudaliar v. State of Madras(’) and  before  the Bombay  High  Court in Commissioner of Sales  Tax  v.  Vicco Laboratories(2).   Both  the courts took the view  that  the tooth  powder is a toilet.  The same view has been taken  by the  Allahabad  High Court.  We are in agreement  with  that view In the result these appeals fail and they are dismissed with costs-hearing fee one set. Y.P.                          Appeals dismissed. (1) 14. S. T. C. 943. (2) 22. S. T. C. 169. 734